2025 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Lynn Poschner, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (10 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two sons, and the older son also appeals termination of the mother’s rights to him.  OPINION HOLDS: The son’s objection to termination is grounded in his wish to care for the mother and be with her to ensure she is supported going forward.  But at twelve years old, he deserves to be a kid.  And one of our core responsibilities is to ensure children are cared for, not doing the caretaking.  So, like the juvenile court, we find the child-objection exception should not prevent termination here.  As for the other issues, the mother’s lack of progress with her substance use precludes returning the sons to her custody, the sons are best served by termination, no permissive exception should apply, and the juvenile court appropriately declined to impose a guardianship or give extra time to work toward reunification.  We therefore affirm both appeals.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Sandy, J.  (8 pages)

            A mother appeals the juvenile court’s termination of her parental rights to her daughter, A.H., under Iowa Code section 232.116(1), paragraphs (f) and (l) (2024).  The mother contests the grounds for termination, argues termination is not in the child’s best interests, and alternatively contends that the child should have been placed in a guardianship.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding the grounds for termination have been met, termination is in the child’s best interests, and that guardianship is not a viable alternative to termination, we affirm the juvenile court’s termination of the mother’s parental rights to the child. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Sioux County, Jessica R. Noll, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (7 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the statutory grounds for termination have been met and termination is in the best interests of the child, we affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights to his child.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Matthew A. Schuling, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, P.J.  (7 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his son, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the grounds for termination, claiming termination is not in the child’s best interests, and arguing the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services failed to make reasonable efforts toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm.  

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mills County, David Brooks, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, P.J., and Ahlers and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (8 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  She challenges the statutory grounds authorizing termination, whether termination is in the children’s best interests, and the juvenile court’s decision to not apply a permissive exception to termination.  OPINION HOLDS: The State established a statutory ground for termination, termination is in the children’s best interests, and we decline to apply a permissive exception to termination.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Poweshiek County, Lucy J. Gamon, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., Sandy, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J.  (9 pages)

            An applicant for postconviction relief appeals the denial of his application, which sought relief from four second-degree sexual abuse convictions.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the applicant has not shown any ineffective assistance, nor has he shown he would have prevailed on his claim of purportedly newly discovered evidence, we affirm dismissal of his application.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Buena Vista County, Charles K. Borth and Nancy L. Whittenburg, Judges.  REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL.  Heard at oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, P.J.  Dissent by Buller, J.  (16 pages)

            Timothy Griffin appeals his conviction for possession of methamphetamine, third or subsequent offense, as a habitual offender.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the district court did not make the necessary meaningful inquiry to determine whether Griffin knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel, we cannot conclude that Griffin’s waiver of counsel was knowing and voluntary.  As a result, we must reverse and remand for a new trial.  DISSENT ASSERTS: I do not condone rewarding difficult defendants with a new trial, find no reversible error in this record, and believe the majority holding to be deeply fact-bound or a misapplication of controlling precedent.  

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Becky Goettsch, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard at oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Langholz and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (11 pages)

            Alexander Bachman appeals his conviction for operating while intoxicated, third offense, challenging the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress his blood test results obtained by a warrant.  He argues that the officer invoked the implied-consent procedures of Iowa Code chapter 321J (2022) by offering him a preliminary breath screening test (“PBT”) and was thus exclusively required to follow the implied-consent procedures rather than seeking a warrant.  OPINION HOLDS: Neither the text of the statute nor precedent supports Bachman’s interpretation that the implied-consent procedures become mandatory merely because of offering a PBT.  Implied consent is invoked only when an officer requests a motor vehicle operator to submit to a chemical test of the operator’s blood, breath, or urine.  The officer never did that here—he got a warrant instead.  And that does not violate the statute.  We thus affirm the district court’s suppression ruling and Bachman’s conviction.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, John D. Telleen, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., Buller, J., and Carr, S.J.  Telleen, S.J., takes no part.  Opinion by Carr, S.J.  (4 pages)

            William Smith appeals the district court’s denial of his application for postconviction relief, arguing the district court erred in denying his application due to ineffective assistance of counsel at his sentencing hearing.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding no breach of duty, we must affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Crawford County, Roger L. Sailer, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard at oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., Badding, Chicchelly, Buller, JJ., and Telleen, S.J.  Opinion by Ahlers, P.J. (12 pages)

            A defendant appeals his conviction for second-degree sexual abuse, raising challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and evidentiary challenges.  OPINION HOLDS: The defendant’s conviction is supported by sufficient evidence, and his evidentiary challenges fail.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, David M. Cox, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., Sandy, J., and Doyle, S.J.  Opinion by Doyle, S.J.  (8 pages)

            Following a jury trial, Dustin Burns was convicted of numerous counts of sexual abuse.  He contends the district court abused its discretion in failing to grant his motion for new trial because his convictions are contrary to the weight of the evidence.  He also contends the district court abused its discretion because it improperly relied on Burns’ lack of remorse when imposing sentence.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding no abuse by the district court on either point, we affirm Burns’ convictions and sentence.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Joel Dalrymple, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard at oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Greer, Schumacher, Langholz, and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J. (23 pages)

            Eugene Love Jr. appeals his conviction of first-degree murder.  He argues the district court wrongly denied his Batson challenge and his subsequent motion for mistrial related to that claim.  Love also argues the court erred when it denied his motion to admit hearsay evidence about the victim under the rule of completeness.  Finally, Love contends the court abused its discretion when the court found his expert’s testimony to be irrelevant to the factual questions reserved for the jury.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm Love’s conviction for first-degree murder.